[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200618014429.GS11245@magnolia>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 18:44:29 -0700
From: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
To: Masayoshi Mizuma <msys.mizuma@...il.com>
Cc: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...deen.net>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Masayoshi Mizuma <m.mizuma@...fujitsu.com>,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-xfs <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: i_version mntopt gets visible through /proc/mounts
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 09:30:26PM -0400, Masayoshi Mizuma wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 02:45:07PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 01:28:11PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > > but mount(8) has already exposed this interface:
> > >
> > > iversion
> > > Every time the inode is modified, the i_version field will be incremented.
> > >
> > > noiversion
> > > Do not increment the i_version inode field.
> > >
> > > so now what?
> >
> > It's not like anyone's actually depending on i_version *not* being
> > incremented. (Can you even observe it from userspace other than over
> > NFS?)
> >
> > So, just silently turn on the "iversion" behavior and ignore noiversion,
> > and I doubt you're going to break any real application.
>
> I suppose it's probably good to remain the options for user compatibility,
> however, it seems that iversion and noiversiont are useful for
> only ext4.
> How about moving iversion and noiversion description on mount(8)
> to ext4 specific option?
>
> And fixing the remount issue for XFS (maybe btrfs has the same
> issue as well)?
> For XFS like as:
>
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c
> index 379cbff438bc..2ddd634cfb0b 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c
> @@ -1748,6 +1748,9 @@ xfs_fc_reconfigure(
> return error;
> }
>
> + if (XFS_SB_VERSION_NUM(&mp->m_sb) == XFS_SB_VERSION_5)
> + mp->m_super->s_flags |= SB_I_VERSION;
> +
I wonder, does this have to be done at the top of this function because
the vfs already removed S_I_VERSION from s_flags?
--D
> return 0;
> }
>
> Thanks,
> Masa
Powered by blists - more mailing lists